Expert: Eric Christy - 1/21/2006

Question
-------------------------
Followup To
Question -
I think it would be so nice if Hell was just an invention.  But I'm sorry if I disagree but if there is no punishment in store for me then Jesus would not have to suffer and die.  His whole mission was to undo the work of Satan.  In the OT sins were just covered, but in the New T. they were completely taken care of.  I'm sorry that this isn't a question but feel free to respond.

I agree that there are errors in the Bible too, but couldn't these errors have arisen from transmission and not from the writers themselves?
Answer -
Greetings,

Thanks for your question. I have re-evaluated my stance on whether eternal hell (EH) exists or not, and have come to the conclusion that it does. The scripture speaks of the eternality of heaven, and in the same verse, the eternality of hell--Mathew 25:46. In this verse, the word "eternal" is used for both heaven and hell. So if we believe that heaven is eternal, then so is hell.

The reason I questioned whether there could be an EH at all is because I knew that the Bible (New Testament) teaches an EH, but that it does not bother to justify such a horrific doctrine. I never doubted that the Bible taught EH for the unbeliever. What I had trouble with was that it did not explain why, it did not justify such a horrific consequence for not accepting Jesus as your savior. Jesus and the apostle Paul talk about the consequence of unbelief ending in EH, but do not justify why a righteous God would have chosen such a course for non-believers.

It seemed to me, and still does quite frankly, that God would have used a remedial-type of hell (RH) where those who die unsaved go to RH and are punished for their sins. Their punishment must be finite because the amount of sin would be finite. If I sinned every second of my life, I still would have committed a finite amount of sin. God cannot justly punish you beyond that which you've sinned. So in RH, you pay off your sin-debt, but after that is paid, you are offered salvation through faith, the same faith you would have used to accept Jesus while you were alive on earth. You could still refuse, as God does not take away free will. But that offer is extended eternally if necessary in the hopes that you (and all other lost souls in RH) come to your spiritual senses and accept Jesus. You stay in RH until you do. But if you do, then you're welcomed into heaven just as any saved soul would be when they die. To me, this would be how a just God would have handled the problem of lost souls. RH is just and loving as it punishes sin, yet forgives the repentant. The Bible's version, is neither.

Yet, I do believe the Bible...mainly because I have to or else I risk my own salvation. But logically, and especially morally, the Bible's version of EH is bogus. It is bogus not because it teaches EH, but because it does so without bothering to *justify* this most hideous of doctrines. Without the requisite justification, it is suspect. No preacher, no priest, no theologian has been able to justify it. Heck, not even God can justify it! He just states it without trying to justify it. This of course allows the critics of Christianity a means to challenge the doctrine of eternal hell because it is not only crucial to our faith, but is also not justified in scripture. Hence it is suspect. How can the Christian be expected to defend the doctrine of EH, when not even God can? However, in spite of the lack of proper justification, I believe it. I believe it mainly for pragmatic reasons (I value my salvation and don't want to lose it) knowing full well if asked by someone to justify it, I cannot. And when asked, I say that the Bible teaches EH, but it doesn't justify it. That's an honest reply to anyone who asks.

This inability to justify the doctrine of EH caused me to consider that perhaps not everything written in the Bible has its source in God. Of all the doctrines Christianity is built upon, the doctrine of EH and its solution by trusting Christ Jesus for your salvation, is paramount. You and I both know the Bible contains some errors. Some are minor copyist errors, while others are major and need more attention to solve. An example would be the story of the woman caught in the 'act' of John 8:1-11. This story is a fabrication. It never historically happened. In all the copies of John's gospel up to 500 AD, it NEVER appears. Then after around 500 AD, it all of a sudden appears! It did appear in Luke's gospel, but was removed, and we ask why? It did appear in Mark's gospel, and was removed, and again, we ask why? Finally, it appears in John's gospel where it never was. You guessed it, we ask, why? And no one knows why! This is a serious error that can be solved ONLY if we admit textual tampering with the scripture has occurred. This isn't the only case of textual tampering. This brings into question what belongs as scripture, and what does not?

That is why I developed my view of RH. Considering that textual tampering has occured, I decided to invent a better, kinder, more gentler sort of hell. You know, a hell in which we all could be proud of and praise God for. That sort of thing. But I have decided to accept the Biblical version because even though it cannot be justified morally, it is, nonetheless, what is written. I accept that, leaving any loose ends that God may see needing tying together, up to Him. In other words, I'm no longer using the "well there's errors throughout the Bible, so let me fix them so that God will be acceptable to me" theology. I'm going by the book, so to speak. So RH is out, and EH is in.

I hope that answers your questions. Thanks for contacting me. If you would like to chat further, please don't hesitate.

Eric

Wow, let me just award you for your honesty!  The subject of Hell is pretty weighty.  I would suggest reading "The Problem of Pain" by C.S. Lewis.  

I don't want to defend God on his doctorine (like he needs defending), but I think hell is something that will only make sense once we have left our bodies.  But for the time being I take a practical approach at the concept of hell.  Let me illustrate what I mean by an example from statistics (a class I had last semester)

Type one error=rejecting the null when it is in fact true
Type two error=rejecting the alternate when it is in fact true

Practice problem:
1.) H1(null):The parachute works
   H2(alternate):The parachute does not work

What would be the best error in this situation?
-a Type one error

Now for the real problem

2.) H1: There is such a thing as EH
   H2: There is not such a thing as EH

What would be the worst error in this situation?
-Type one error-that is, by eliminating the null hypothesis you have accepted the alternative but at a heavy price because it is incorrect.

You get the picture.

John 8:1-11 is questionable because my Bible reads (The earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not have John 7:53-8:11).  That means this passage was probably in the Alexandrian codex.  It's sort of the same deal as the ending on Mark.  If I were a pastor I would be cautious when using these passages.  However, despite the credibility of John 7:53-8:11 the passage fits well with John 3:17 "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him."  The ending of Mark does agree with some parts of scripture but I doubt whether Jesus wants us to drink poison to prove we are of Him.

I have some doubts about the reliability of scripture but I trust that God will give me answers.  Sometimes I have not been given answers but new perspectives.  Maybe the answer isn't as important as the perspective God wants you to have, I don't know.  Currently I was very distraught about a section written by Paul where he says there were 23,000 people when he should have said 24,000.  I was like "God how could you do this!"  I think God showed me how minor this mistake was, because that was all I was mad at.  Just sitting back now I think that if that's all that bothers me about the Bible then I'm not doin to bad.  I suspect that  John 8 and Mark's second ending will make more sense once I've studied them a little more.  But I try to rest my mind on the big things in the Bible: Jesus died, he was God, he rose again, he fulfilled scripture, we are saved by faith and that faith's signposts are good works.  There are always going to be arguments (usually at pedantic things like 23,000 or 24,000).  My perspective has been not to throw the baby out with the bath water.  

Forgive me in advance but I don't agree that Jesus needs to justify something like Hell.  The idea of Hell just reminds me that God is holy.  It's not the part of him we like so much.  But for God to justify hell it shows that he is appealing to us hoping that we accept it or him.  It's like he were some nerdy kid trying to prove that he was cool to the in crowd (who btw don't know what cool is in the first place).  But like you said "it's in the Bible" so God apparently isn't worried that he won't look attractive to some people.  I think that right now we think that the punishment of hell is overdoing it.  I kinda do, I mean it's forever!  But once I'm in heaven I'll be able to see the injustice purely, without my fallen state right now.

Good reply and great talking to you

-Andrew Schaeffer  

Answer
Hi Andrew,

Nice to hear from you again. Yes, the subject of hell is pretty weighty, alright. I have read C.S. Lewis' "The Problem of Pain". Very insightful, as was his "The Great Divorce" (regarding hell) and "The Screwtape Letters". These all cover the matter of hell.

I suppose you're right when you say that hell will only make sense when we leave our bodies. It certainly doesn't make sense while we're still in them :)

Interesting use of statistics. However, I might add that you haven't dealt with the complete data set, namely, the other option of whether the writers were all inspired by God? This too needs addressing. We take on faith that they were, but there is no way to prove it. Even prophecy, which does a good job in demonstrating divine inspiration cannot be used to validate nonprophetic statements, such as whether hell is eternal, or not. While I do believe that the vast majority of scripture has been divinely inspired, I am not sure about all of it. Again, the problem we previously discussed regarding God not giving the requisite rationale for having hell be eternal. But as I have stated, I choose to believe that it is, if for no other reason that for self-preservation.

Your null hypothesis works on the basis of fear. That is, since we don't know by experiencial knowledge what the future is for departed souls, and since the Bible teaches us that the lost souls go to hell, we have to take it on faith that this is the case for the lost. However, this is a 'faith' based solely upon the fear of the unknown. It is not based upon sound moral principles. People are afraid of going to hell (and rightly so) so they accept Jesus as their savior. This works to save souls, but it is the most mundane of reasons to accept Him. The power of the gospel message is not love (though that is what is promoted) but fear. Fear of hell. That is where the real power of the gospel message lies. The Bible does not contain sound moral principles for having hell be eternal suffering and separation from God without hope of spiritual rehabilitation. Again, because of the Bible's lack of supporting moral rationales for making hell eternal suffering, I came up with remedial hell (RH) which isn't Biblical, but it is moral. But I also admitted to you that I have now renounced RH because it is not Biblical.

I am glad you admit to the problems in textual tampering. Most Christians seem to really have a hard time accepting this, even though it cannot be honestly denied. If God had wanted to have a truly perfect book, He would have been forced to do all the copying of the texts Himself down through the ages and then given these copies to the various priests, pastors, and lay people as needed. The fact that God chose to rely upon humans to do the copying virtually guaranteed that errors of varying types would creep into the text sooner or later. And, we didn't disappoint Him. We came through! Apparently, God is less concerned about the errors throughout the Bible as we humans are. He allows them so that we humans have something more to fight about and something more to solve, finding out what God REALLY means. Your statement of not throwing out the baby with the bathwater is what I often say, too. Keep the baby (the Bible) but throw out the bathwater (that which we know is an error).

I understand why you say Jesus does not need to justify something like hell. However, while I understand your position on this, I do disagree. Jesus would have provided great help, for those who wish to defend His statements on hell, if He would have provided us a sound rationale for it. As it is, we look like complete idiots, buffoons when we try to speak to anyone with any intelligence as to their need to escape eternal hell by accepting Jesus as their savior. The fact that neither Jesus nor the apostle Paul bothered to provide a requisite rationale for an eternal hell is seen as a KEY weakness in the entire doctrine of salvation for anyone who can think. That is why Jesus said that the foolish accept His message, while the wise do not. Intellectually, Christianity hasn't any foundation at all. It is a stupidly developed religious premise. God should have used a Socrates instead of a Paul to develop the rationales for the faith. But Paul is all He had to work with, apparently. And because of Paul, we have a great church planter, evangelist, courageously loyal follower of his Lord, and a devoted caretaker of his spiritual children, but a lightweight intellectually. He couldn't demonstrate a logical rationale for why we need to accept Jesus as our savior. Paul gave a fear-based rationale...accept Jesus or be damned...but not a moral rationale. Hence, to all who can think, Christianity is a seen as nothing more than spiritual extortion.

If I were God, I would have made SURE that the logical, moral foundations of the faith were well established. God screwed up in this matter, as far as I'm concerned. It's almost as if God does NOT want people to accept the principles of the faith on reason, but more on just faith, just believe without providing a sound justification for it, but instead relying heavily upon the FEAR of not accepting it. Yet, I believe.

Eric